1. Field of the Invention
The present invention relates generally to a semantic interface for a computer system, and more particularly, to a system and method of providing a semantic interface that allows a user to access via a set of user defined words a plurality of services, including command, navigation and substitution, within all contexts of his/her computer system.
2. Related Art
Computers have revolutionized the way individuals in all aspects of life perform tasks. A user interface provides a mechanism for individuals to access all the features and functionalities of their computer. Without a user friendly interface, these features and functions are typically inaccessible to the computer operator. The prevalent user interface in the industry todays uses windows, icons, menus and pointing devices. The text stream entered by the user, however, has been essentially ignored.
This window-based user interface (also referred to as a graphical user interface or GUI) was first conceived by Xerox, commercialized by Apple Computers (e.g., the Macintosh), and brought to the mainstream by Microsoft Corporation (e.g., Windows 95). The GUI is powerful for organizing the capabilities and resources available in a computer. It enables the user to incrementally explore and discover his computer's capabilities and controls. It keeps everything in a conventional visual context, using helpful metaphors, like desktops and windows.
The GUI provides a menu hierarchy which is accessible via a pointing device or mouse. One of the cornerstones of this interface is the ability for the user to interact directly with objects and elements. This can be a great advantage in some cases, but it can result in making simple tasks that are often repeated into tedious choirs of navigation through a maze of GUI windows. To provide the ability to directly manipulate the elements or objects, you must enable the user to work at an “atomic” level, losing the ability to group a related series of basic actions into one high level action or use of conditionals.
Under this paradigm, we can no longer access or work with objects that are not visible or unknown to us. This situation is not unlike going to eat in another country where we do not known the language. We are thus forced to go to the kitchen and point to whatever food we want. It is clear that we do not want to go to the kitchen in order to eat; we would rather express ourselves using all the richness that our natural language allows. In order to accomplish this goal, the computer has to respond to human language and not the other way around. In reality, we want to be able to go to our favorite restaurant and say “give me my usual order” and receive exactly what we ordered. This is personal attention and awareness of your eating profile. This is, in essence, what we want from our personal computer.
Advocates of the window-based user interface firmly believe that the user should always be in control. The window-based user interface provides permanent feedback to the user by providing windows with means. The down side of this is that the user must always be in control even if he does not want to be or he cannot be because of the complexity of the task. Window 95, for example, has started a trend in allowing the user to delegate his control to an agent, through a concept of smart and thoughtful “agents.” Such tasks like un-installing software, are, for example, automatically performed by Windows 95.
There are many tasks that a user must repeat again and again when using a GUI, such as opening certain files and activating certain controls. For such tasks, the GUI presents the user with a single logic set, implemented within the limited screen real estate of his computer monitor. Also, the GUI recognizes none of the user's words. Even the simplest functions requires the user to change mode from the keyboard to hand/eye mouse control. To use the GUI, he must lift his hand from the keyboard to the user. He must also lift his eyes to the screen to locate the desired graphical element, and then manipulate the mouse while visually monitoring the result. This is like having to look at someone every time you want to say a word to that person.
Computer systems must provide users with a mechanism to undo a previous action when a mistake has been made. These same systems must also provide a strong warning if an intended action will be irreversible. This is not a great concern when you are a novice user, but when you become a more experienced user, this feature will turn against you and unnecessarily increase your workout. Take for instance the simple task of copying a file to a floppy that does not have enough free space. The Macintosh window-based interface provides a warning that you must throw away X Kb in order to make space. The user, in an attempt to make space, discards X Kb of data from the floppy and places it in the trash. The user once again attempts to copy the file onto the floppy, only to be told that there is not enough room, but would you like to throw out the trash. This is what you wanted from the start! What was a good feature quickly becomes a nuisance.
The problem stems from the inability of the computer to fully understand even our simplest intentions; it lacks our personality profile. In order to overcome this problem, the computer needs to build a deeper model of each user's intentions and history in order to better serve the user's needs and to eliminate unnecessarily repetitive activities. The core requirement here is to provide mechanisms to ascertain how users work and to track their activities in an unobtrusive way.
Current wisdom states that the more static and unchanging our environments, the simpler and better it is for us. As we grow in knowledge and understanding of what the computer can do for us, we are willing to accept changes and learn to cope with them in our quest to increase our personal productivity. Unfortunately, current computer user interfaces have limited abilities to allow a user to express themselves. If computers could communicate with a richer language, it would not be so important that everything have a uniform look and feel.
The computer interface should allow the user to perform any task at any time, irrespective of the application that are currently running. In other words, if a user is working on a word processor and needs to make some calculations, he should not be required to leave his work and open another application via a menu driven user interface to complete the necessary arithmetic operations.
Every computer user has a unique pattern of use. Typically, 80% of a user's work product is accomplished through repeated use of only 20% of his software's available features. This is commonly referred to as Pareto's Rule, and the 20% of the tasks are often referred to as the “vital few.” The 80% of available software features and functions that are not needed or used by any particular user must still be available to all other users through the GUI system of menus and windows. Every user's “80/20” profile is unique. Nevertheless, it is the need to organize 100% of the available functionality that necessitates the depth, nesting and complexity of current GUI system. As a result, the GUI is an inefficient fit, to a greater or lesser degree, for every individual user.
Over the years, a number of approaches have been invented to tackle this problem of inefficient fit. Because of their inherent limitations, none have been successful enough to reach the mainstream user. Software entrepreneurs have developed “shortcut” utilities of various designs. While not specifically marketed as such, the intention of these utilizes is to address each user's “80/20” pattern of often repeated tasks. These “shortcut” utilities take two forms: macros triggered by key combinations and icon palette macros.
Macros triggered by key combinations typically take one or both of two forms, macro utilities and text replacement utilities. Macro utility programs provide shortcuts to functions and processes such as opening applications and files, making menu selections, and performing multi-step operations. Macro utilities, such as Tempo, MacroMagic, and Keyboard Express for the “WinTel” platform and QuicKeys for the Macintosh are all activated by the user via keystroke combinations. Microsoft's Windows interface offers many key combination shortcuts macros to operate various controls, menus and etc. To activate these macros, the user must press at least one “control” key (e.g., <alt>), combined with pressing a single “non-control” character (e.g., <x>). Users find it very difficult to develop a mnemonically consistent scheme for remembering such key combinations, for two reasons. First, the combinations are mnemonically so arbitrary that it is difficult to use mnemonic logic to memorize the cryptic key combinations. Also, many key combinations only work a given way in specific application programs, further restricting the combinations that are available. The user's limited ability to remember and reflexively recall more than a few cryptic key combinations severely limit's the usability of macro utilities. Many people are so intimidated by the cryptic nature of macros they refuse to even consider their use.
Text substitution utilities provide the ability to replace a short string of types text with long and/or formatted text. For example, a user may define the code word “evp” to trigger the substitution to “Executive Vice President”, or define a short code word like “and” to be replaced by a series of pre-defined text lines (name and address in this case). There are several utility software products available to do that within single applications. Text replacement utilities for single applications are, for example, included with Word 7.0 for Windows95. Other examples include ShortKeys for Windows and both SpellCatcher and TypeIt4Me on the Macintosh platform. Recognition of the user's words by these utilities is limited to the purpose of replacing one text string with another. These utilities are writer's aids only. They do not enable the user to also use words for controlling computer processes and functions.
Icon palette utilities are used to give macros a visual presence and context. The macros are activated via mouse clicks. The Icon pallets are an attempt to use a visual interface to overcome the cryptic and therefore hard-to-remember keystroke interface for macro utilities. Often, macro utility products offer icon palletes as a second, alternative interface for accessing the macros. In this approach, a computer macro (process or function) is assigned to a graphical icon, which is presented on an icon bar on the user's screen. Examples of such utilities are included in Norton Navigator for Window95 and in both QuickKeys and OneClick on the Macintosh platform.
By definition, these Icon pallet utilities are an extension of the GUI. Screen size, display resolution, and the user's preference in allocating scarce screen real estate limit the number of icons it makes sense for the user to display on his screen. Given that the users “vital few” can involve scores or hundreds of items, the Icon approach is severely limited by the visual real estate available and the amount of visual complexity the user can tolerate. Moreover, the user must memorize the relationship between the graphic depiction of each icon and the function or process each executes. As the users icon pallet population increases, the distinctiveness of each icon is reduced.
The existing shortcut utilities do not offer the user an integrated approach to creating, managing and using shortcuts for content services, retrieval services and command. Their interfaces are inconsistent and far too difficult to organize and remember. Because the user must assemble his shortcuts using a collection of different software products. he loses a lot of his gains in dealing with cumbersome and time-consuming management of his shortcuts.
It is clear from the above, that the current trend to rely solely on window-based user interfaces has seriously constrained a user's ability to fully utilize their computer. Although the window-based user interface has revolutionized the computer system, and has allowed millions of people to use computers, we have replaced a point where a user's ability to fully appreciate and utilize all of the features and functionalities of their computer system has done compromised. Thus, what is needed is a system and method that provides a user with an efficient, convenient and natural way to utilize his everyday language to work with applications, files, control commands, and the like, that form his/her “vital few.”